fl©  B 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/gainsboroughsbluOOfull 


GAINSBOROUGH'S  BLUE  BOY 


A MONOGRAPH 

BY 

WILLIAM  H.  FULLER 


NEW  YORK 
1898 


THOMAS  GAINSBOROUGH,  R.A* 

\ 727— \ 788. 

The  Blue  Boy* 

Height,  71£  inches.  Width,  50^  inches. 

Superlative  qualities  of  style,  of  distinction,  of  life,  no 
less  than  accompanying  charms  of  color  and  of  execution, 
belong  to  this  picture  and  place  it  easily  among  the  master- 
pieces of  portraiture  of  any  school  and  any  period.  It 
marks  the  apogee  of  Gainsborough’s  career,  for  it  possesses 
the  most  precious  characteristics  of  this  eminent  artist’s 
work  and  reflects  all  the  magic  of  his  genius.  Like  other 
notable  portraits  which  might  be  cited,  it  is,  first  of  all, 
very  simple  in  arrangement  and  is  fascinating  for  the 
very  reason  of  its  direct  and  frank  treatment.  The  youthful 
subject,  dressed  in  a so-called  Yandyke  costume  of  blue  silk, 
has  been  painted  in  an  attitude  of  unstudied  grace,  facing  the 
spectator,  his  left  leg  slightly  in  advance  of  the  right,  which 
supports  the  weight  of  the  body.  His  right  arm — the  hand 
holding  a large  hat  with  white  feather — hangs  nearly  straight 
by  his  side ; the  left  hand  is  hidden  in  the  folds  of  a short 
cloak,  which  it  holds  against  the  left  hip.  Rich  lace  at  the 
neck  and  wrist,  and  delicate  lines  of  embroidery  at  the 

3 


edge  of  the  closely  buttoned,  short-waisted  jacket  embel- 
lish this  garment,  and  the  soft  folds  of  a lawn  shirt  are 
seen  at  the  bend  of  the  arm  and  at  the  waist.  Lace- 
trimmed  garters  fasten  the  white  silk  stockings  at  the  knee, 
and  bows  of  the  same  material  adorn  the  shoes.  The  color 
of  this  costume  is  always  described  as  blue,  and  rightly  so, 
although  it  has  a peculiar  and  unique  quality  which  may 
be  more  accurately  designated  as  a composite  tone  of  warm 
green  blue.  It  has  the  depth  and  refinement  of  some  of 
the  similar  tones  found  in  oriental  porcelains.  The  head 
of  the  boy  is  rich  and  glowing  in  color,  solid  in  modelling, 
and,  moreover,  is  drawn  with  extraordinary  precision  and 
force.  The  type  of  face  is  impressive  in  its  refinement  and 
in  the  pure  boyishness  of  expression.  The  vivacious  but 
limpid  eyes  under  the  angles  of  the  delicately  moulded 
eyebrows;  the  fine,  straight  nose;  the  firm  and  sensitive 
mouth,  almost  feminine  in  its  sweetness — each  and  every 
feature  has,  indeed,  unusual  charm.  Behind  the  figure,  and 
enveloping  it  in  full,  warm  tones,  a landscape  is  broadly 
suggested,  with  great  vaporous  clouds,  trees  in  full  foliage, 
and  a gleam  of  light  along  the  low  horizon.  The  whole 
picture  is  enveloped  in  a soft,  mellow  tone. 

Frank  D.  Millet,  1ST.A. 


4 


GAINSBOROUGH’S  BLUE  BOY. 

( From  the  Collection  of  Sir  Joseph  Hawley.) 


It  is  a matter  of  great  regret  that  no  satisfactory 
life  of  Tliomas  Gainsborough  lias  yet  been  written. 
That  regret  is  all  the  greater  because  there  is  little 
likelihood  that  such  a life  will  ever  be  written.  The 
material  that  Gainsborough  left  behind  him  which 
can  be  nsed  for  such  a purpose  is  so  meagre  that 
it  will  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  to  the 
world  an  adequate  idea  of  the  personality  and  career 
of  this  rarely  gifted  man.  This  is  all  the  more  inex- 
plicable when  we  consider  the  rank  he  held  among  his 
contemporaries  and  the  influence  his  paintings  had 
upon  the  future  English  School  of  Art.  Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds  said  of  him : 

“ If  ever  this  nation  should  produce  genius  sufficient  to 
acquire  to  us  the  honourable  distinction  of  an  English  School, 
the  name  of  Gainsborough  will  be  transmitted  to  posterity, 
in  the  history  of  the  art,  among  the  very  first  of  that  rising 
name.”  * 

* Beechy’s  “ Literary  Works  of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  ” (London,  1879), 
vol.  ii. , p.  80. 


5 


Although  Gainsborough  shared,  if  indeed  he  did 
not  equally  divide,  the  honors  of  successful  portraiture 
with  Sir  Joshua,  he  had  this  additional  distinction, 
that  he  was  also  a landscape  painter  without  a peer. 
And  yet,  while  the  whole  career  of  Reynolds,  from 
boyhood  down  to  the  day  when  his  remains  were  laid 
in  the  crypt  of  St.  Paul’s,  is  an  open  book,  much  of 
the  life  of  his  great  rival  will  forever  remain  in 
obscurity. 

Mr.  Walter  Armstrong  says: 

“Literature  has  made  the  career  of  Reynolds  no  less 
familiar  than  those  of  his  friends,  Johnson,  Burke,  or 
Goldsmith.  How  is  it,  then,  that  a modern  writer  finds  it 
so  difficult  to  gather  facts  for  a sufficient  monograph  of 
Gainsborough  ? ” * 

If,  then,  so  much  difficulty  is  encountered  in  prepar- 
ing an  adequate  life  of  the  great  painter,  what  will  be 
said  of  an  attempt  to  trace  the  life  of  his  pictures? 
The  undertaking  is  rendered  all  the  more  difficult 
from  the  fact,  that  Gainsborough  never  signed  or  dated 
his  pictures.  Happily,  in  the  case  of  the  painting 
whose  lineage  is  mainly  the  subject  of  this  monograph, 
the  task  is  less  discouraging  than  would  attend  the 
history  of  the  great  majority  of  his  works.  In  the 
course  of  the  discussion,  another  picture  will  be 
brought  under  consideration — a picture  called  the 

* “Thomas  Gainsborough,”  by  Walter  Armstrong,  Director  of  the 
National  Gallery  of  Ireland.  (London,  1894.) 

6 


“Blue  Boy/’  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke  of 
Westminster;  and,  as  both  paintings  are  similar  in 
size  and  subject,  the  question  will  naturally  arise, 
Which  picture  is  the  original  “Blue  Boy”  of 
Thomas  Gainsborough  ? In  answering  that  question 
it  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  dealing  with 
paintings  probably  more  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  old ; that  the  evidence  concerning  them 
is  not  always  direct  and  conclusive ; that  at  times  it 
is  circumstantial ; nevertheless,  sufficient  testimony  has 
been  found  to  enable  one  to  form  a reasonable  judg- 
ment as  to  the  lineage  and  the  relative  merits  of 
the  two  pictures.  That  Gainsborough  should  have 
painted  two  pictures  of  this  subject — one  a replica 
of  the  other — is  not  without  precedent  by  the  artists 
of  his  day.*  No  less  a man  than  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds 
painted  more  than  one  replica  of  his  celebrated  “Mrs. 
Siddons  as  the  Tragic  Muse.”  The  best  known  are 
the  one  now  in  the  Dulwich  College  Gallery  f and 
the  other  (of  nearly  the  same  size)  in  the  possession 
of  the  Duke  of  Westminster.  $ 

* “Gainsborough  probably  painted  more  than  one  ‘Blue  Boy.’” 
Cosmo  Monkhouse,  in  the  “Dictionary  of  National  Biography,”  vol.  xx., 
p.  364. 

f “ Canvas  7 ft.  9 in.  x 4 ft.  9 in.  Catalogue  of  the  Pictures  in  the 
Gallery  of  Alleyre’s  College  of  God’s  Gift  at  Dulwich,  1892.” 

I “There  is  an  excellent  replica  of  the  picture  at  Langley  Park, 
Stowe,  the  seat  of  Mr.  Harvey,  M.P.,  given  by  Sir  Joshua  to  Mr.  Harvey’s 
grandfather,  in  exchange  for  a large  ‘ Boar-hunt  ’ by  Snyders,  which 
Sir  Joshua  admired,  and  which  used  to  hang  in  the  place  now  filled  by 

7 


Gainsborough  himself  painted  four  replicas  of  his 
famous  picture  “The  Girl  and  Pigs.”  This  picture 
was  exhibited  at  the  Royal  Academy  in  1782,  and 
Leslie  says  it  was  “ Gainsborough’s  masterpiece  of  the 
year.”  * It  was  purchased  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  for 
one  hundred  guineas,  although  Gainsborough’s  price 
was  only  sixty.  The  original  “ Girl  and  Pigs  ” is  now 
in  the  possession  of  Lord  Carlisle,  at  Castle  Howard,  f 
It  is  the  purpose  of  this  monograph  to  throw  as 
much  light  as  possible  upon  the  lineage  of  these  two 
“Blue  Boy”  pictures,  and  to  leave  the  question  of 
probable  priority  of  painting  to  the  sound  judgment 
of  thoughtful  and  intelligent  readers. 

the  ‘Tragic  Muse.’  This  is  certainly  the  finest  example  of  the  picture 
after  the  original  in  the  Grosvenor  Gallery.  The  Dulwich  replica  (which 
is  the  one  marked  in  Sir  Joshua’s  account  as  sold  to  Mr.  Desenfans  in 
June,  1789,  for  735 1.)  is  inferior,  and  according  to  Northcote,  was 
painted  by  Score,  then  one  of  Sir  Joshua’s  journeymen.  There  is  a 
replica  (including  only  the  upper  part  of  the  figure)  in  the  possession  of 
Mrs.  Combe,  of  Edinburgh,  and  another,  a full-length,  in  Lord  Nor- 
manton’s  gallery,  of  the  history  of  which  I am  not  informed.” — “ Life 
and  Times  of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,”  by  Charles  Robert  Leslie,  R.  A.,  con- 
tinued and  concluded  by  Tom  Taylor,  M.A.  (London,  1865),  vol.  ii., 
p.  424 — note. 

* “ Life  of  Reynolds,”  vol.  ii.,  p.  362. 
f Armstrong’s  “ Thomas  Gainsborough,”  p.  50. 

8 


THE  BLUE  BOY, 


L 

In  1770,  Gainsborough  exhibited  at  the  Royal 
Academy  three  full-length  portraits  which  were 
entered  in  the  Catalogue  as  follows : 

Thomas  Gainsborough,  R.A. 

Bath. 

No.  83  Portrait  of  a lady  and  child,  \ 

“ 84  A ditto  of  a gentleman,  l whole  lengths.* 

“ 85  A ditto  of  a young  gentleman,  j 

It  is  well  known  that  one  of  these  portraits  pro- 
duced a marked  sensation.  Miss  Mary  Moser,  a 
founder  member  of  the  Royal  Academy,  writing  to 
Fuseli,  who  was  then  in  Rome,  said : 

“ I suppose  there  has  been  a million  of  letters  sent  to 
Italy  with  an  account  of  our  Exhibition,  so  it  will  be  only 
telling  you  what  you  know  already,  to  say  Reynolds  was 
like  himself  in  pictures  which  you  have  seen  ; Gainsborough 
beyond  himself  in  a portrait  of  a gentleman  in  a Vandyke 
habit;  and  Zoffany  superior  to  everybody  in  a portrait  of 
Garrick  in  the  character  of  Abel  Drugger,  with  two  other 
figures,  Subtle  and  Face.” — Leslie  and  Taylor’s  “ Life  and 
* From  the  Catalogue  in  the  British  Museum. 

9 


Times  of  Sir  Joshua  Keynolds”  (London,  1865),  vol.  i., 
p.  359. — John  Thomas  Smith,  “Nollekens  and  his  Times” 
(London,  1828),  vol.  i.,  p.  66.* 

Of  all  Gainsborough’s  pictures  the  “Blue  Boy”  is 
probably  the  most  celebrated,  and  one  can  readily 
understand  Miss  Moser’s  enthusiasm,  if  the  “Blue 
Boy”  was  the  object  of  her  admiration,  when  she 
exclaims,  “Gainsborough  [was]  beyond  himself  in  a 
portrait  of  a gentleman  in  a Vandyke  habit.”  It  is 
not  likely  that  there  was  more  than  one  portrait,  by 
Gainsborough,  “in  a Vandyke  habit”  in  that  exhibi- 
tion, and  if  there  were  two,  still  there  was  only  one 
in  which  Gainsborough  was  “beyond  himself.”  Now, 
the  picture  that  Miss  Moser  wrote  about  could  not  have 
been  No.  83,  for  that  was  a portrait  of  a lady  and 
child ; it  must,  therefore,  have  been  84  or  85.  All 
three  of  these  portraits  were  full  length ; so  that  the 
picture  Miss  Moser  was  describing  was  a full-length 
portrait  of  a gentleman  in  a Vandyke  habit.  If  she 
had  said  “ young  ” gentleman  the  identification  of  the 
“ Blue  Boy  ” would  have  been  complete.  It  must  be 
remembered,  however,  that  Miss  Moser  was  not 
intent  upon  a minute  description  of  the  picture,  but 
merely  wanted  to  indicate,  in  a manner  exact  enough 

*“Mrs.  Nollekens  was  honoured  with  the  friendship  of  three 
highly  celebrated  ladies,  Miss  Moser,  R.A.,  the  famous  Painter  of 
flowers,  afterwards  Mrs.  Lloyd ; Mrs.  Angelica  Kauffman,  R. A.,  . . • 

and  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Carter,  the  well-known  translator  of  Epictetus.” — 
“ Nollekens  and  his  Times*”  vol.  i.,  p.  59. 

10 


for  the  occasion,  the  picture  in  which  Gainsborough 
was  “ beyond  himself.”  Now,  the  first  printed  de- 
scription of  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” known  to  the  writer  is 
found  in  a book  by  Edward  Edwards,  an  Associate 
of  the  Royal  Academy,  published  twenty  years  after 
Gainsborough’s  death.  It  is  as  follows  : 

“ A whole  length  Portrait  of  a young  Gentleman,  in  a 
Vandyck  dress,  which  picture  obtained  the  title  of  the  Blue 
Boy  from  the  colour  of  the  satin  in  which  the  figure  is 
dressed.” — “ Anecdotes  of  Painters  ” (London,  1808),  p.  140. 

If  we  compare  this  description  with  that  given  by 
Miss  Moser,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  official  cata- 
logue shows  the  1770  portrait  was  “whole  length,” 
we  find  that,  with  the  exceptions  of  the  word  “ young  ” 
omitted  by  Miss  Moser,  and  her  saying  “habit”  in- 
stead of  “ dress,”  the  two  descriptions  are  precisely 
alike.  Compare,  now,  Edwards’  description  of  the 
“ Blue  Boy  ” with  Gainsborough’s  memorandum  of 
No.  85  in  the  catalogue  of  the  1770  Exhibition.  The 
latter  is,  “ Portrait  of  a young  gentleman,  whole 
length.”  If  we  add,  “in  a Vandyck  dress,”  we  have 
Edwards’  description  of  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” almost  ex- 
actly word  for  word.  In  Gainsborough’s  memoran- 
dum, the  words,  “ in  a Vandyck  dress,”  were  not 
necessary.  The  dress  spoke  for  itself.  Inasmuch  as 
Gainsborough  painted  no  other  portrait  in  a Vandyke 
habit  that  has  become  eminently  famous,  and  since,  in 

11 


tlie  Exhibition  of  1770,  there  was  a portrait  in  a Van- 
dyke habit  by  him  in  which  he  was  “ beyond  him- 
self,” the  conclusion  seems  reasonable  that  the  “ Blue 
Boy  ” was  one  of  the  wonders  of  that  exhibition  about 
which  the  “million  of  letters”— so  to  speak — were 
sent  to  Italy. 

This  opinion  coincides  with  that  of  Mr.  F.  G.  Ste- 
phens, the  Athenaeum  art  critic,  as  expressed  in  his 
historical  note  concerning  the  “Blue  Boy”  in  the 
catalogue  (p.  36)  of  the  Exhibition  of  Gainsborough’s 
Works  at  the  Grosvenor  Gallery  in  1885.  Mr.  Ste- 
phens says: 

“ Miss  Mary  Moser,  R.A.,  writing  to  Fuseli,  then  in  Borne, 
stated  that  it  is  ‘ only  telling  you  what  you  know  already  of 
the  Exhibition  of  1770,  to  say  that  Gainsborough  is  beyond 
himself  in  the  “Portrait  of  a Gentleman  in  a Vandyke  habit.” 5 
That  the  4 Blue  Boy  ’ was  thus  referred  to  is  more  than  prob- 
able, although  the  fact  is  incompatible  with  the  commonly 
held  opinion,  that  the  picture  was  intended  to  expose  the 
fallacy  of  the  [eighth]  discourse  [of  Sir  Joshua  Beynolds] 
delivered  long  after  1770.”  * 

Mr.  William  Martin  Conway,  Boscoe  Professor  of 
Art,  University  College,  Liverpool,  and  author  of 
“The  Artistic  Development  of  Reynolds  and  Gains- 
borough” (London,  1886),  at  pages  63-64  of  this 
work,  expresses  a similar  opinion : 

“Some  of  his  [Gainsborough’s]  best  pictures  belong  to 

*The  inexactness  of  Mr.  Stephens’  quotation  from  Miss  Moser’s 
letter  does  not  change  its  sense,  but  makes  it  plainer. 

12 


the  period  intervening  between  1770  and  1780.  Foremost 
amongst  these  is  the  full-length  portrait  of  Jonathan  Buttal, 
world-renowned  as  the  ‘ Blue  Boy  5 (Grosv.  No.  62).  It  is 
probably  the  ‘Portrait  of  a Young  Gentleman,5  the  ‘Por- 
trait of  a Gentleman  in  a Yan  Dyck  Habit,5  exhibited  by 
Gainsborough  at  the  Koyal  Academy  in  1770.55 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Professor  Conway  was 
discussing  the  date  of  Gainsborough’s  “Blue  Boy” 
and  not  the  title  of  the  picture  as  given  in  the  ex- 
hibition catalogue  of  1885. 


What  disposition  was  made  by  Gainsborough  of 
the  “Blue  Boy”  after  its  exhibition  at  the  Royal 
Academy  in  1770  (assuming  now  that  it  was  ex- 
hibited at  the  Academy  in  that  year)  is  not  known ; 
but  it  is  known  that  subsequently  the  picture  became 
the  property  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  afterwards 
George  IV.  The  date  of  its  acquisition  by  the  Prince 
is  not  important ; the  fact  of  his  once  owning  it  is 
the  material  thing,  and  that  is  established  by  a bit  of 
history  contributed  to  Tliornbury’s  “ Life  of  Turner  ” 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Trimmer,  a son  of  one  of  Turner’s 
executors.* 

* “The  Rev.  Mr.  Trimmer  (eldest  son  of  the  artist’s  [Turner’s] 
oldest  executor,  of  Marston  on  Bere,  Staffordshire)  I have  to  also 
warmly  and  especially  thank  for  a MS.  volume  of  recollections  of 
Turner,  whom  he  had  known  for  forty  years.” — “Life  of  Turner,”  vol. 
i.,  p.  vii. 

“I  cannot  refrain  from  inserting  some  valuable  reminiscences  of 

13 


Mr.  Trimmer  writes : 

“Many  years  ago  resided  at  Heston  a Mr.  Nesbitt,  a 
person  of  substance,  in  his  younger  days  a companion 
of  George,  Prince  of  Wales.  He  once  possessed  Gains- 
borough’s 4 Blue  Boy,’  and  in  the  following  way : He  was 
dining  with  the  Prince  of  Wales.  ‘ Nesbitt,’  said  the  Prince, 
£ that  picture  shall  be  yours.’  At  first  he  thought  he  was 
joking,  but  finding  he  was  decidedly  serious,  Nesbitt,  who 
was  an  old  beau  of  the  very  first  water,  made  all  suitable 
acknowledgment  for  his  Koyal  Highness’s  generosity,  and 
next  morning  the  ‘ Blue  Boy  ’ arrived,  followed  in  due  time 
by  a bill  of  300Z,  which  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  paying. 
I heard  him  many  years  ago  tell  the  story  at  my  father’s 
table.” — “ The  Life  of  J.  M.  W.  Turner,  R.A.”  (London, 
1862),  vol.  ii.,  p.  63. 

The  anecdote  is  characteristic  of  the  spendthrift 
Prince,  and  Mr.  Trimmer  had  it  from  Mr.  Nesbitt 
himself. 

The  date  of  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  purchase  of  the  “ Blue 
Boy”  from  the  Prince  of  Wales  is  not  given.  It 
must,  however,  have  been  some  time  before  1802,  for 
in  that  year  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  pictures  were  sold  by 


Turner’s  early  and  later  contemporaries,  kindly  furnished  me  by  his  old 
friend,  Mr.  Trimmer.” — Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  57. 

In  the  course  of  the  ten  pages  of  reminiscences  of  Gainsborough 
contributed  here  to  the  “Life  of  Turner,”  Mr.  Trimmer  says  : 

“From  what  I have  said  of  Gainsborough,  you  will  perceive  that  I 
rank  him  with  the  non-terrestrials.  ‘ O deus  certe.’ — I place  the  Eng- 
lish school  thus — Gainsborough,  Wilson,  Turner,  Reynolds,  and  then 
ten  abreast  at  random. 

“I  place  Gainsborough  first  because  of  his  great  originality.  No 
one  can  copy  him  with  success,  and  his  genuine  pictures  pronounce 
themselves  unmistakably.” — Vol.  ii.,  pp.  64-65. 

14 


auction,  and  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” was  among  them.  For 
reasons  personal  to  himself,  Mr.  Nesbitt  did  not  care 
to  have  his  name  connected  with  the  advertisement  of 
the  auction,  which  took  place  at  his  London  resi- 
dence, 20  Grafton  Street,  Piccadilly,  May  25,  1802.* 
In  view  of  the  very  important  relation  which  Mr. 
Nesbitt  sustained  to  Gainsborough’s  “ Blue  Boy,”  it  is 
desirable  to  know  who  he  was,  and  what  his  taste 
and  judgment  were  in  pictorial  art.  According  to 
the  statement  of  Mr.  J.  Sewell  in  Notes  and 
Queries , January  1,  1870,  page  17, 

“Further  research  to  discover  who  Mr.  Nesbitt  was,  has 
shown  that  he  belonged  to  the  Lismore  family  of  Nesbitts ; 
that  he  was  the  John  Nesbitt,  Esq.,  M.P.,  who  for  about 
twenty  years  represented  in  Parliament,  either  Winchelsea, 
Gatton,  or  Bodmin  ; that  he  inherited  the  property  and  fine 
old  paintings  of  his  uncle,  Arnold  Nesbitt,  M.P.  for  Crick- 
lade,  who  died  in  1774 ; that  his  brother  Arnold  was  chaplain 
to  the  Prince  Begent ; that  the  Prince  and  John  Nesbitt 
were  ‘on  the  best  of  terms’ ; and  that  Mr.  Nesbitt  lived  at 
Heston  from  about  1815  to  1820.” 

Mr.  Nesbitt’s  position  in  the  Art  world  may  fairly 
be  inferred  from  what  the  Times  said  of  him  and  his 

*“  Auction  Sales. 

“Genuine  Property — Select,  uncommonly  perfect,  most  beautiful 
and  valuable  Paintings. 

“By  Peter  Coxe,  Burrell  and  Foster. 

“On  the  Premises,  No.  20  Grafton  Street,  on  Tuesday,  May  25,  at 
12  o’clock,  the  Property  of  a Gentleman  long  distinguished  for  taste 
and  judgment,”  etc. — The  [London]  Times,  May  25,  1802. 

15 


Collection,  the  day  preceding  the  auction  sale.  The 
Times  of  May  24,  1802,  in  an  editorial  article  said : 

“ The  very  choice  Collection  of  Paintings  which  are  to  be 
sold  to-morrow  on  the  premises,  No.  20  Grafton  Street,  the 
upper  end  of  Dover  Street,  Piccadilly,  are  of  the  very  first 
description  of  Art.  The  Cabinet  Picture  of  the  immortal 
Rubens;  . . . the  two  Cuyps;  . . . the  Yernet 

painted  for  Madame  du  Barry,  the  Guido,  the  Giorgione, 
Nicolo  Poussin,  Alexander  Yeronese,  Terburg,  Yandyke, 
Mignard,  Gainsborough,  and  every  other  Picture  prove  the 
judgment  of  the  Gentleman  who  collected  them,  whose  well 
known  taste  fully  justifies  the  eulogium  passed  upon  the 
Pictures  in  the  Descriptive  Catalogue.” 

The  Times  of  the  following  day,  under  the  head  of 
“Auction  Sales,”  speaks  of  the  Collection  as  “the 
Property  of  a Gentleman  long  distinguished  for  taste 
and  judgment.”  In  the  editorial  column  of  the  same 
issue,  the  Times  says: 

“ To  be  able  to  possess  perfection  and  to  miss  the  golden 
opportunity  would  be  a crime  against  taste  and  judgment, 
and  now  or  never  may  be  fairly  argued  in  favour  of  the  in- 
estimable Pictures  that  Mr.  Coxe  has  to  sell  this  day  on  the 
premises,  No.  20  Grafton  Street,  Piccadilly.” 

Then  follows  a glowing  recital  of  the  list  of  superb 
works  in  the  Collection,  in  the  midst  of  which  it  asks, 
“ Where  so  superior  a Gainsborough  in  a fancied  Por- 
trait ? ” 

And  in  the  concluding  sentence  it  is  said,  “ This  is 
indeed  a day  for  the  purchasing  the  finest  works  of 
Art.”  Plainly,  then,  according  to  the  Times , Mr. 

16 


Nesbitt  not  only  possessed  fine  inherited  pictures,  but 
was  himself  a distinguished  connoisseur,  whose  44  well 
known  taste  fully  justifies  the  eulogium  passed  upon 
the  Pictures  in  the  Descriptive  Catalogue.” 

Now,  the  manner  in  which  the  44  Gainsborough  in 
a fancied  Portrait”  is  set  forth  in  the  Descriptive 
Catalogue  prepared  for  the  auction  is  given  by  Mr. 
Sewell  in  Notes  and  Queries,  January  1,  1870 : 

44  Through  the  courtesy  and  urbanity  of  the  present  head 
of  the  Lismore  family,  Alexander  Nesbitt,  Esquire,  T.  C.,  we 
are  enabled  to  quote  the  following  admirable  description  of 
the  original  4 Blue  Boy ’ from  a catalogue  of  his  great- 
uncle’s  choice  paintings  and  which  speaks  for  itself  : 

44  4 No.  63  Gainsborough.— A whole-length  Figure,  with  a 
fine  Landscape  in  the  Back-Ground.  This  most  incompara- 
ble performance  ranks  this  very  celebrated  Master  among 
the  First  Class  of  Painters,  Ancient  and  Modern.  It  has  the 
Grace  and  Elegance  of  Vandyck  in  the  Figure,  with  a 
Countenance  as  forcibly  expressed  and  as  rich  as  Murillo, 
with  the  Management  of  Titian.  It  is  a picture  which 
cannot  be  too  highly  spoken  of  or  too  much  admired.’  ” 

The  question  naturally  arises,  What  became  of  the 
44  Blue  Boy  ” at  the  Nesbitt  sale  ? A careful  search 
of  the  files  of  the  Times  in  the  British  Museum  by 
Mr.  R.  English,  an  official  of  that  institution,  does  not 
disclose  the  name  of  the  purchaser,  but  Edwards’ 
44 Anecdotes  of  Painters”  (1808)  throws  some  light 
on  the  subject.*  It  says : 

* Edwards  died  December  19,  1806  ; his  “Anecdotes  of  Painters” 
was  not  published  till  1808.  The  title  page  of  that  work  reads : “ Anec- 

17 


“ It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  enumerating  the  pictures 
which  this  artist  [Gainsborough]  painted,  yet  the  following 
short  list  may  not  be  unentertaining  or  useless  to  the  reader. 

“ A whole  length  Portrait  of  a young  Gentleman  in  a 
Tandy ck  dress,  which  picture  obtained  the  title  of  the  ‘ Blue 
Boy’  from  the  colour  of  the  satin  in  which  the  figure  is 
dressed.  It  is  not  exaggerated  praise  to  say,  that  this  por- 
trait might  stand  among  those  of  Tandy  ck.  It  is  now  in 
the  possession  of  Mr.  Hoppner,  R.A.” — p.  140. 

Thus  we  learn  that,  four  years  after  the  Nesbitt 
sale  in  1802  (for  Edwards  died  in  1806),  the  “Blue 
Boy  ” was  in  the  possession  of  the  well-known  artist 
John  Hoppner,  B.A.  But  was  Hoppner  its  owner? 
An  answer  is  supplied  by  a letter  of  Hoppner’s  son, 
Richard  Belgrave  Hoppner,  addressed  to  his  nephew, 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Gifford  Gallwey.  It  is  dated  June 
7,  1872,  and  reads  as  follows: 

“ My  dear  Nephew  : 

“ I have  just  received  your  letters  of  the  20th  May  and 
2nd  June,  enclosing  copy  of  one  from  Mr.  Sewell  to  you 
respecting  a picture  by  Gainsborough,  known  as  the  Blue 
Boy.  All  I can  say  of  the  picture  is,  that  I can  perfectly 
remember  it  in  my  father’s  house,  18,  Charles  Street,  St. 
James’s  Square,  and  I believe  it  was  in  my  father’s  custody 
for  II.  R.  II.,  the  Prince  of  Wales.  How  long  it  remained  in 
my  father’s  house,  or  what  became  of  it  afterwards,  I don’t 

dotes  of  Painters  who  have  resided  or  been  born  in  England  ; with 
Critical  Remarks  on  their  Productions  by  Edward  Edwards  deceased, 
Late  Teacher  of  Perspective  and  Associate  in  the  Royal  Academy,  In- 
tended as  a Continuation  to  the  Anecdotes  of  Painting  by  the  Late 
Horace  Earl  of  Orford,  London  1808.” 

“Anecdotes  of  Painting,”  however,  is  the  title  of  the  body  of 
Edwards’  book,  and  is  the  running  title. 

18 


know.  As  to  the  details  of  the  picture’s  history  from  1802 
to  1815,  during  a great  part  of  that  time  I was  myself  out 
of  England,  which  may  perhaps  be  the  reason  why  I have 
so  limited  a recollection  of  it.  My  daughter,  Madame  de 
Tamarre,  has  a picture  of  a young  lad,  by  Tiberio  Tivelli, 
that  I purchased  at  Yenice  half  a century  ago,  which,  if  it  is 
possible  for  Gainsborough  to  have  seen  it,  I should  say  fur- 
nished him  with  the  model  for  his  picture.  The  boy,  how- 
ever, is  in  a brown  dress. 

“ Your  affectionate  Uncle, 

[Signed]  “ R.  B.  Hoppnek.”  * 

From  this  letter  it  clearly  appears  that,  in  tlie  belief 
of  the  painter’s  son,  John  Hoppner  was  not  the  owner 
of  the  “ Bine  Boy,”  but  was  merely  its  trustee  for  the 
Prince  of  Wales,  bolding  tbe  picture  subject  to  bis 
disposition.  Wbat  became  of  it?  It  certainly  did 
not  remain  permanently  a part  of  tbe  Prince’s  Collec- 
tion; nor  is  there  any  account  known  to  tbe  public 
that  tbe  Prince  sold  it  to  a private  purchaser.  If  be 
bad  done  so,  would  not  tbe  new  owner  have  given 
special  prominence  to  tbe  fact  that  be  got  it  from  His 
Royal  Highness  ? But  tbe  “ Blue  Boy  ” must  have 
gone  to  somebody.  Now  a “ Blue  Boy  ” arrived  at 
Mr.  Nesbitt’s  residence  at  Heston  in  1815  about  tbe 
time  when  Mr.  Nesbitt,  having  discharged  bis  debts, 
was  able  to  bold  property  in  bis  own  name  again. 
Tbe  testimony  of  tbe  widow  Shortland,  for  many 
years  a member  of  Nesbitt’s  household,  is  most  ex- 

* Notes  and  Queries,  June  21,  1873,  pp.  505-506. 

19 


plicit  that  a “ Blue  Boy  ” picture,  subsequently  recog- 
nized by  her,  was  brought  to  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  house  soon 
after  Mr.  Nesbitt  came  to  Heston ; that  it  was  hung 
in  the  parlour  opposite  the  fireplace,  and  that  it  re- 
mained in  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  house  until  about  the  time 
he  ]eft  Heston.*  Mr.  Sewell, f in  his  record  of  the 
identification  of  the  “Blue  Boy”  as  the  picture  that 
was  for  some  years  in  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  residence  at 
Heston,  says : 

“ From  official  sources  we  find  that  Nesbitt’s  affairs  were 
settled  about  the  close  of  1814,  or  the  beginning  of  1815,  by 
the  sale  of  his  life  interest  in  an  estate  for  the  benefit  of  his 
creditors,  and  from  local  sources  that  he  took  up  his  resi- 
dence at  Heston  in  1815,  and  that  the  ‘ Blue  Boy  ’ arrived 
there  shortly  afterwards,  it  was  said,  from  the  Palace. 
. . . This  aged  widow  [Mrs.  Shortland],  having  described 

the  £ Blue  Boy  ’ with  much  accuracy  to  some  of  the  parochial 
officials,  was  asked  to  go  to  London  to  see  if  she  could  recog- 
nise the  green  4 Blue  Boy  ’ as  the  picture  she  knew  at  Hes- 
ton. This  she  did  on  March  9 [1871],  accompanied  by  her 
grandson,  and  promptly  recognised  the  ‘Boy,’  but  not  the 
frame  in  which  he  is  now  set,  and  rightly  so,  for  the  frame  was 
changed  after  Nesbitt’s  sale.  . . . The  interview,  as  it 

may  be  called,  between  the  widow  and  the  ‘ Boy  ’ was  . . . 

quite  like  the  meeting  of  two  long-parted  friends.” — Notes 
and  Queries , May  6,  1871,  p.  392. 

Now  tbe  “ Blue  Boy  ” Laving  arrived  at  Nesbitt’s 
Louse  in  Heston,  one  naturally  asks,  “ WLere  did  tLe 

* Notes  and  Queries,  May  6,  1871,  p.  392. 
t J.  Sewell,  Assoc.  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  Eng. 

20 


picture  come  from  ? ” According  to  the  belief  of 
John  Hoppner’s  son,  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” belonged  to  the 
Prince  of  Wales.  His  possession  of  this  painting 
a second  time  was  probably  for  some  other  pur- 
pose than  that  which  ordinarily  attends  the  acquisi- 
tion of  works  of  art.  Years  before,  the  Prince  had 
sold  the  picture  to  Mr.  Nesbitt  for  a liberal  price. 
When  adversity  came  upon  his  friend,  what  would 
the  Prince  be  likely  to  do  ? Do  not  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Prince  bought  the  picture  for  Mr.  Nesbitt,  that  he 
kept  it  for  him  for  several  years,  and  that  finally  he 
sent  it  to  him  at  Heston  the  moment  that  Nesbitt 
was  released  from  his  debts,  and  could  hold  the  “ Blue 
Boy”  safe  from  attachment  by  his  creditors? 

Up  to  this  date,  then,  the  lineage  of  this  picture 
may  be  summed  up  as  follows  : That  it  was  exhibited 
at  the  Royal  Academy  in  1770;  that  it  became  after- 
wards the  property  of  the  Prince  of  Wales;  that  the 
Prince  sold  it  to  John  Nesbitt ; that  it  was  one  of 
Nesbitt’s  collection  of  paintings  disposed  of  by  auction 
May  25,  1802;  that  it  was  subsequently  in  the  pos- 
session of  John  Hoppner,  R.A.,  as  custodian  for  the 
Prince  of  Wales;  that  early  in  1815,  when  Nesbitt 
was  discharged  from  his  debts  and  liabilities,  it 
was  returned  to  him  at  Heston  by  the  Prince  of 
Wales. 


21 


From  this  time  on  there  is  no  dispute  concerning  its 
lineage.  The  dates  at  which  it  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  different  owners  are  not  given  with  precision, 
although  the  order  of  succession  is  preserved.  This 
important  fact,  however,  seems  to  be  established,  that 
from  1815  to  1820  there  was  a “ Blue  Boy”  in  Mr. 
Nesbitt’s  possession,  and  another  “ Blue  Boy  ” of  sub- 
stantially the  same  size  and  subject  in  the  possession 
of  Earl  Grosvenor.* 

About  the  year  1820,  Mr.  Nesbitt’s  affairs  again 
became  involved,  his  pictures  were  sold,  and  the 
“Blue  Boy”  became  the  property  of  William  Hall, 
an  auctioneer.  This  gentleman  was  an  eccentric  man 
who  died  in  October,  1856.  “ Hall  made  a will,  but 

it  was,  like  himself,  a peculiar  one,  and  was  disputed, 
first  in  Chancery  and  finally  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
Under  an  order  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  his  house- 
hold effects  were  sold  in  March,  1858.”  f At  this  sale 
Mr.  Dawson  became  the  purchaser  of  the  “ Blue  Boy,” 
and  subsequently  sold  it  to  Mr.  J.  Sewell  of  the  Insti- 
tution of  Civil  Engineers.  In  July,  1870,  Mr.  Sewell 
placed  this  picture  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Hogarth 
of  London  for  sale.  Messrs.  Hogarth  issued  cards 
inviting  their  patrons  to  look  at  the  picture.  Below 
is  a copy  of  their  invitation : 

* The  size  of  the  Grosvenor  “ Blue  Boy  ” is  70  x 48  inches.  The  sight- 
size  of  the  other  is  71|  x 50£  inches. 

f Notes  and  Queries , May  6,  1871. 

22 


“ Gainsborough’s  Blue  Boy. 


“ The  favour  of  — is  requested  to  View  the  above 

celebrated  Picture,  now  exhibiting  for  Sale  at 
Messrs.  Hogarth’s 

96  Mount  Street,  Grosvenor  Square.” 

At  tbat  time  Notes  and  Queries  published  this 
notice : 

“ Gainsborough’s  ‘Blue  Boy.’ — We  have  been  requested 
by  Mr.  Hogarth  to  explain  that  the  picture  which  he  has 
for  sale,  and  for  admission  to  see  which  he  has  issued  cards 
of  invitation,  is  not  the  one  from  the  Grosvenor  Gallery, 
the  property  of  the  Marquis  of  Westminster.  Readers  of 
6 H & Q ’ do  not  require  to  be  reminded  of  the  existence  of  a 
second  ‘ Blue  Boy  ’ by  Gainsborough.”  * 

Messrs.  Hogarth  sold  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” to  Sir  Joseph 
Hawley.  On  the  death  of  the  latter,  it  went  to  his 
brother  Sir  Henry  Hawley,  from  whom  it  was  pur- 
chased by  Martin  H.  Colnaghi,  Esq.,  who  sold  it  to 
its  present  owner. 


II. 

The  Grosvenor  House  “ Blue  Boy  ” possesses  this 
distinction,  that  it  has  a generally  accepted  and,  so  to 
speak,  an  officially  proclaimed  lineage;  that  lineage 
will  be  found  in 

* 1 Votes  and  Queries,  July  2,  1870,  p.  18. 

23 


“ A Catalogue  of  the  Pictures  at  Grosvenor  House,  Lon- 
don ; with  Etchings  from  the  whole  Collection,  executed  by 
Permission  of  the  Noble  Proprietor,  and  accompanied  by 
Historical  Notices  of  the  Principal  Works,  by  John  Young, 
Engraver  in  Mezzotinto  to  His  Majesty,  and  Keeper  of  the 
British  Institution.” 

This  catalogue  was  published  in  London,  May  12, 
1820.  The  particular  picture  now  under  considera- 
tion is  No.  16  in  the  catalogue,  and  is  mentioned  in 
the  following  terms : 

“ GAIN SBOROU GH 
“ POETBAIT  OF  MASTEB  BUTTALL, 

“ Better  known  under  the  name  of  the  Blue  Boy. 

“ This  Picture  was  painted  in  consequence  of  a dispute 
between  Gainsborough,  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  and  several 
other  Artists.  The  former  having  asserted  that  he  thought 
the  predominant  colour  in  a Picture  ought  to  be  blue ; the 
others  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  not  possible  to  produce  a 
fine  Picture  on  such  a principle ; and  the  Artist  in  conse- 
quence painted  this  Portrait  as  an  illustration  of  his  opinion. 
It  was  considered  that  he  had  proved  his  assertion  ; and  his 
performance  having  excited  great  attention,  and  become  a 
general  theme  of  praise  with  the  Artists  of  that  day,  tended 
much  to  enhance  the  reputation  he  had  already  acquired. 

“ This  Picture  was  purchased  at  Mr.  Buttall’s  sale  by  Mr. 
Nesbit ; it  became  afterwards  the  property  of  Mr.  Hoppner, 
who  disposed  of  it  to  Earl  Grosvenor.” 

It  is  quite  possible  that  Young  is  in  error  in  his 
statement  that  “ this  picture  was  painted  in  conse- 
quence of  a dispute  between  Gainsborough,  Sir 

Joshua  Reynolds  and  several  other  Artists.”  No  ac- 

24 


count  of  it  appears  in  Fulcher’s  “ Life  of  Gainsbor- 
ough,” nor  in  Leslie  and  Taylor’s  “ Life  of  Sir 
Joshua  Reynolds.”  Moreover,  if  Gainsborough  ever 
said  that  “ the  predominant  colour  in  a Picture  ought 
to  be  blue,”  he  certainly  did  not  practice  this  theory 
in  his  usual  manner  of  painting.  Perhaps  Young  had 
in  mind  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds’  celebrated  Eighth  Dis- 
course, sometimes  called  his  u Cold  Colour  Discourse,” 
delivered  before  the  students  of  the  Royal  Academy, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  distribution  of  prizes,  Decem- 
ber 10,  1778.  Sir  Joshua  then  said : 

“ It  ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  indispensably  observed 
that  the  masses  of  light  in  a picture  be  always  of  a warm 
mellow  colour,  yellow,  red,  or  a yellowish- white ; and  that 
the  blue,  the  grey,  or  the  green  colours  be  kept  almost  en- 
tirely out  of  these  masses,  and  be  used  only  to  support  and  set 
off  these  warm  colours ; and  for  this  purpose,  a small  pro- 
portion of  cold  colours  will  be  sufficient. 

“ Let  this  conduct  be  reversed  ; let  the  light  be  cold  and 
the  surrounding  colours  warm,  as  we  often  see  in  the  works 
of  the  Roman  and  Florentine  painters,  and  it  will  be  out  of 
the  power  of  art,  even  in  the  hands  of  Rubens  or  Titian,  to 
make  a picture  splendid  and  harmonious.” — Beechy’s  “ Liter- 
ary Works  of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds”  (London,  1878),  vol.  i., 
p.  454. 

It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  Sir  Joshua,  when 
he  laid  down  his  indispensable  law  about  the  use  of 
“ cold  colours  ” in  painting,  had  some  person  in  mind — - 
some  artist  of  celebrity,  whose  paintings  were  greatly 
admired,  but  whose  color  scheme  he  greatly  disap- 

25 


proved.  It  is  quite  possible,  even,  that  he  had  in 
mind  a certain  famous  picture  which  embodied  in  a 
striking  manner  the  faults  that  he  warned  his  students 
to  avoid.  Such  a picture  would  be  Gainsborough’s 
“Blue  Boy,” — the  painting  that  was  probably  the 
subject  of  Mary  Moser’s  praise  as  the  “ portrait  of  a 
gentleman  in  a Vandyke  habit,”  in  the  Royal  Academy 
Exhibition  of  1770.  The  years  that  had  elapsed  since 
that  exhibition  may  have  led  Sir  Joshua  to  believe 
that  a censure  expressed  in  general  terms,  even  if  it 
recalled  Gainsborough’s  celebrated  painting,  would, 
nevertheless,  be  regarded  as  free  from  intended  per- 
sonality. As  is  well  known,  Reynolds  and  Gainsbor- 
ough were  rivals  in  their  profession,  and  their  private 
relations  far  from  friendly.  On  one  occasion,  at  a Royal 
Academy  dinner,  the  President  sought  to  disparage 
Gainsborough’s  recognized  rank  in  portraiture  by  pro- 
posing the  health  of  Thomas  Gainsborough,  “Our  great- 
est living  landscape  painter,” — a sentiment  which  pro- 
voked Wilson’s  well-known  blunt  retort  that  brought 
an  apology  from  Sir  Joshua ; although  that  apology  was 
tendered  because  he  had  overlooked  Wilson’s  presence, 
and  not  because  he  had  omitted  to  recognize  his  rival’s 
rank  as  a portrait  painter.  The  fact  is,  there  was  an 
inborn  temperamental  antagonism  between  these  men. 
Allan  Cunningham,  after  mentioning  Gainsborough’s 
failure  to  complete  his  portrait  of  Sir  Joshua,  says : 


“ Some  unnatural  fit  of  good  will  had  brought  them  to- 
gether ; on  reflection,  they  separated,  and  continued  to  speak 
of  one  another  after  their  own  natures ; Gainsborough  with 
open  scorn,  Reynolds  with  courteous,  cautious  insinuation.” 
— “ British  Painters  ” vol.  i.,  p.  243. 

Considering,  then,  the  personal  and  professional  re- 
lations between  them,  is  it  likely  that  any  sensitive 
regard  for  Sir  Joshua’s  feelings  would  have  prevented 
Gainsborougli  from  exhibiting  his  picture  wherever  he 
pleased  ? And  if  this  picture  was  Gainsborough’s 
superb  reply  to  Sir  Joshua,  what  place  in  all  London 
could  have  been  more  appropriate  and  more  telling 
for  its  display  than  the  Royal  Academy  where  the 
President  had  delivered  his  “ Cold  Colour  Discourse  ” ? 
But  no  record  is  found  of  such  an  exhibition.  That 
fact  in  itself  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that 
Gainsborough’s  a Blue  Boy  ” was  not  painted  for  the 
purpose  that  Young  and  others  have  supposed. 

The  statement  also  that  the  “Blue  Boy”  is  the 
“ Portrait  of  Master  Buttall  ” is,  to  say  the  least,  of 
doubtful  authenticity.  It  is  true  that  Edwards  in 
his  “ Anecdotes  of  Painters  ” mentions  a picture  by 
Gainsborough,  that  “ obtained  the  title  of  the  Blue 

O 

Boy  from  the  colour  of  the  satin  in  which  the  figure 
is  dressed,”  and  in  a foot  note  says : “ This  was 

the  Portrait  of  a Master  Buttall,  whose  father  was  a 
very  considerable  ironmonger  in  Greek  street,  Soho.” 

Young  may  have  borrowed  his  statement  from  Ed- 

27 


wards  and  applied  it  to  tlie  Earl’s  picture,  but  when 
lie  did  so,  lie  took  the  chance  of  adopting  a possible 
mistake.  Before  Young’s  catalogue  was  published 
and  while  the  picture  was  in  the  Earl’s  possession,  it 
was  exhibited  at  the  British  Institution  in  1814,  and 
it  then  bore  neither  the  title  of  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” nor 
“ Portrait  of  Master  Buttall.”  It  was  catalogued  : 
“Portrait  of  a Youth 
Possessor,  Earl  Grosvenor.”  * 

In  1884,  it  was  again  exhibited  at  the  British  In- 
stitution, and  on  that  occasion  it  was  catalogued : 

“ Selection  from  the  Grosvenor  Gallery : 

By  Thomas  Gainsborough. 

No.  117.  A Young  Gentleman  in  a Landscape. 

The  Picture  known  as  the  Boy  in  Blue.”  f 

It  was  not  until  the  Manchester  Exhibition  of  1857 
that  the  Grosvenor  House  picture  bore  in  public  the 
dual  title — “The  Blue  Boy  (Master  Buttall).”  J 

In  regard  to  the  latter  name  given  to  this  picture, 
Mr.  J.  Sewell  has  thrown  some  light  by  an  investi- 

* “An  Account  of  all  the  Pictures  exhibited  in  the  rooms  of  the  British 
Institution  from  1818  to  1823  belonging  to  the  Nobility  and  Gentry  of  Eng- 
land, London,  1824.” — Transcript  by  Mr.  R.  English,  British  Museum. 

f Catalogue,  p.  13. — Transcript  by  Mr.  R.  English,  British  Museum. 

X “ Catalogue  of  the  Art  Treasures  of  the  United  Kingdom  collected 
at  Manchester  in  1857.  Saloon  D. — No.  156.  The  Blue  Boy  (Master 
Buttall). 

“Painted  to  disprove  the  opinion  of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  that  the 
predominance  of  blue  in  a picture  is  incompatible  with  a good  effect  of 
colour.  Lent  by  the  Marquis  of  Westminster.” — Transcript  by  Mr.  R. 
English,  British  Museum. 


28 


gation  made  by  him  or  his  representatives,  of  which 
an  account  is  given  in  Notes  and  Queries , June  14, 
1873,  p.  486.  It  is  as  follows: 

“ Research  and  inquiry  have  shown  that  there  were  two 
Jonathan  Buttalls — father  and  son — but  have  failed  as  yet 
to  discover  that  the  younger  Buttall  had  any  offspring,  or 
that  any  child  was  born  to  either  the  elder  or  the  younger 
Buttall  between  1727  and  1796.  But  it  was  found  that  in 
1727,  the  year  in  which  Gainsborough  was  born,  the  elder 
Buttall  was  a vestryman  and  overseer  of  St.  Ann’s,  Soho, 
a position  rarely  held  by  any  one  under  thirty.  . . .” 

Sir  Joshua’s  Discourse  was  delivered  December  10, 
1778.  At  that  time  Gainsborough  was  fifty-one 
years  old.  Assuming  that  Mr.  Sewell’s  investigation 
was  correct,  how  old  was  “ Master  Buttall  ” in  1778? 
As  no  child  was  born  to  the  elder  Buttall  after  1727, 
his  son,  “ Master  Buttall,”  must  have  been  in  1778  a 
youth  of  at  least  fifty-one  years  of  age.  Nor  could 
the  “ Blue  Boy  ” have  been  the  portrait  of  a son  of 
the  second  Buttall,  for  “ Research  and  inquiry  . . . 

have  failed  as  yet  to  discover  that  the  younger  But- 
tall had  any  offspring.”  But  if  Gainsborough  and 
young  Buttall  were  boyhood  friends,  might  not 
Gainsborough  have  painted  the  portrait  of  his  young 
companion  from  memory  ? The  slightest  study  of 
the  “Blue  Boy”  will  answer  that  question.  That 
gracious,  well-bred,  manly  youth,  full  of  gentle  spirit 

and  soldierly  grace,  with  a vitality  that  breathes 

29 


and  thinks  and  almost  speaks,  could  only  have  been 
painted  from  a living  model,  and  not  from  the 
phantom  of  the  artist’s  brain.  As  we  look  upon 
this  beautiful  portrait,  we  cannot  lielp  a feeling  of 
regret  that  so  lovable  and  gallant  a lad,  immortalized 
by  Gainsborough’s  brush,  should  go  down  to  pos- 
terity without  personal  identity  and  an  authenti- 
cated name. 

It  has  been  claimed  by  some  writers  that  Young’s 
historical  notice  of  the  Grosvenor  House  picture  is 
supported  by  later  authorities  in  art,  as  Allan  Cun- 
ningham, 1833,  Mrs.  Jameson,  1844,  and  George 
Williams  Fulcher,  1856.  An  examination  of  what 
these  writers  have  said  about  this  picture  puts 
their  statements  in  a very  different  light  from  that 
in  which  they  have  commonly  been  regarded.  As 
far  as  Allan  Cunningham  is  concerned,  it  must  be 
said  in  fairness  to  him,  that,  at  the  time  his  book  was 
published,  there  was  no  other  “ Blue  Boy  ” known 
to  be  in  existence,  to  attract  public  attention,  to 
challenge  comparison,  and  to  test  the  accuracy  of 
Young’s  history  of  the  Grosvenor  House  picture. 
That  picture  was  then  the  undisputed  claimant  for 
sole,  original  honors.  Inasmuch  as  Cunningham  did 
not  undertake  to  give  its  lineage,  there  was  no 
apparent  necessity  for  him  to  make  a thorough  ex- 
amination of  the  facts  in  order  that  he  might  set 

so 


forth  an  authentic  history.  He  therefore  simply 
says : 

“ After  experiencing  a variety  of  fortune*  the  far  famed 
‘ Blue  Boy  5 (the  portrait  of  a youth  in  a blue  dress),  and  the 
still  more  celebrated  ‘ Cottage  Door,’  found  their  way  into 
the  gallery  of  Lord  Grosvenor.” — “ British  Painters  ” (Lon- 
don, 1879),  yoI.  i.,  p.  276. 

Mrs.  Jameson,  however,  is  quite  a different  kind  of 
historian.  The  sources  of  her  information  are  easily 
recognized.  In  her  book  entitled  “Private  Picture 
Galleries,”  published  in  1844,  on  page  276,  she  gives 
the  following  description  and  history  of  the  Grosve- 
nor  House  picture  : 

“ The  Grosvenor  Gallery. 

“ No.  137.  The  Blue  Boy. — The  Portrait  of  a son  of  Mr. 
Buttall.  Full  length,  standing,  in  a blue  satin  dress.  Land- 
scape background.  After  the  death  of  this  gentleman,  it 
was  purchased  by  Mr.  Nesbitt,  and  was  afterwards  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  Hoppner,  the  painter,  who  sold  it  to  Earl 
Grosvenor. 

“ This  celebrated  picture  owes  its  origin  to  a dispute 
between  Gainsborough  and  other  artists.  Gainsborough’s 
object  was  practically  to  disprove  the  opinion  of  Sir  Joshua 
Beynolds,  who  thought  that  the  predominance  of  blue  in  a 
picture  was  incompatible  with  good  effect  of  colour.  Gains- 
borough has  certainly  proved  his  assertion  ; and  his  perform- 
ance having  excited  great  attention  and  become  a general 
theme  of  praise  with  the  artists  of  that  day,  tended  much  to 
enhance  the  reputation  he  had  already  acquired.  The  effect 


* The  italics  are  ours. 
31 


of  the  rich  glowing  background,  with  its  broken  lights,  is 
farther  enhanced  by  the  cold  blue  dress.” 

With  the  exception  of  the  last  sentence  and  of  an 
occasional  paraphrase,  the  whole  article  is  taken  bodily 
from  Young’s  catalogue,  and  in  the  passage  we  have 
italicised,  Mrs.  Jameson  has  copied  Young  word  for 
word,  and  without  acknowledgment. 

George  Williams  Fulcher  is  another  writer  whose 
remarks  about  this  picture  are  occasionally  quoted  as 
authoritative  history.  In  his  “ Life  of  Thomas  Gains- 
borough,” published  in  1856  (pp.  111-112),  the  author 
says : 

“ Early  in  the  year  1779,  Gainsborough  probably  painted 
that  full  length  portrait  of  a son  of  Mr.  Buttall,  which  is 
usually  known  as  The  Blue  Boy.  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  had 
maintained  in  one  of  his  Discourses, £ that  the  masses  of  light 
in  a picture  should  be  always  of  a warm  mellow  color,  yel- 
low, red  or  a yellowish  white ; and  that  the  blue,  the  grey, 
or  the  green  colors,  should  be  kept  almost  entirely  out  of 
these  masses,  and  be  used  only  to  support  and  set  off  these 
warm  colors.’  To  refute  the  President’s  objection  to  blue 
in  the  mass,  Gainsborough  clothed  Master  Buttall  in  a dress 
approaching  to  cerulean  splendor.” 

At  page  198,  he  says:  “ At  Mr.  Buttall’s  death  the 
c Blue  Boy  ’ was  purchased  by  Mr.  Nesbitt ; the  pict- 
ure was  afterwards  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Hoppner , 
the  painter , who  sold  it  to  the  first  Earl  GrosvenorT 

Does  not  this  account  of  the  lineage  of  this  picture 
have  an  old  familiar  sound  ? Fulcher  evidently  wrote 

32 


his  history  with  Mrs.  Jameson’s  book  before  him,  for 
he  has  not  only  copied  the  substance,  but  in  the  pas- 
sage italicised  by  us  above,  he  has  copied  the  very 
words  used  by  her  in  her  “ Private  Picture  Galleries.” 
Another  coincidence  may  be  observed,  that  Fulcher  has 
followed  the  precedent  set  by  Mrs.  Jameson,  and  neg- 
lected to  acknowledge  the  source  of  his  information. 

But  Fulcher  is  not  the  only  authority  for  the  state- 
ment that  Hoppner  sold  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” to  the  first 
Earl  Grosvenor.  The  present  catalogue  of  the  Duke 
of  Westminster’s  pictures,  published  in  1888,  contains 
the  following  entry : 

“70.  Thomas  Gainsborough. 

“Born,  1727 ; died,  1788. 

“Full-length  portrait  of  Master  Buthall,  in  a landscape; 
considered  by  the  artist  to  be  his  finest  portrait ; and  cele- 
brated at  the  time  under  the  name  of  ‘ the  Blue  Boy.’ 

“At  Mr.  Buthal’s  death,  this  picture  was  sold  to  Mr. 
Nesbit,  and  was  afterwards  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Hopp- 
ner the  painter,  till  he  sold  it  to  the  first  Earl  Grosvenor.” 

Now,  the  first  Earl  Grosvenor  died  August  5,  1802. 
Nesbitt’s  sale  took  place  May  25,  1802.  If  Hoppner 
sold  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” to  the  first  Earl  Grosvenor,  he 
must  have  done  so  between  these  two  dates.  But 
Edwards,  in  his  “Anecdotes  of  Painting,”  published 
in  1808,  page  140,  says  of  the  “Blue  Boy”: 

“ It  is  now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Hoppner , 

* The  italics  are  ours. 

33 


As  a contemporary  of  John  Hoppner,  an  Associate 
of  the  Royal  Academy,  and  a writer  on  art  matters, 
it  is  not  likely  that  Edwards  would  have  made  such  a 
positive  statement  about  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” if  the  state- 
ment had  not  been  true.  It  is  fair  to  state  that 
Edwards  died  in  1806,  two  years  before  his  book  was 
issued  from  the  press.  No  correction  of  his  state- 
ment, however,  was  made  by  the  editor,  and  it  must 
therefore  stand  as  true  in  1806,  and  probably  true  at 
the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  book. 

But  could  Edwards  have  been  mistaken  after  all  ? 
A bit  of  circumstantial  evidence,  curiously  furnished 
by  Hoppner  himself,  seems  to  confirm  Edwards’  asser- 
tion. In  February,  1809,  one  year  before  he  died, 
Hoppner  criticised  severely  Edwards’  book  in  the 
Quarterly  Review  of  that  date.  The  contemptuous 
and  bitter  feeling  he  had  for  the  author  is  evidenced 
by  some  short  extracts  from  his  article. 

“ The  flippant  remarks  of  fine  ladies  are  occasionally 
quoted  also  by  this  gallant  author,  as  decisive  against  works 
of  high  classical  pretentions ; and,  among  other  pleasantries, 
we  are  told  of  the  ‘ Moppings  of  Gainsborough,’  and  of  4 Dr. 
Burney’s  dabbling  with  a party  of  naked  girls  in  a horse 
pond.’  ...  We  can  neither  commend  the  taste,  nor  the 
patriotism  of  the  man,  who  could  prefer  commemorating  the 
violence  of  party,  and  raking  in  the  annals  of  . . . beer 

houses,  to  the  luxury  of  paying  a just  tribute  to  the  talents 
of  his  contemporaries.” 

After  this,  does  anybody  suppose  that  Hoppner 

34 


would  have  remained  silent  if  he  had  caught 
Edwards  making  a statement  about  his  possession 
of  the  “Blue  Boy”  that  was  not  true?  Would  not 
Hoppner  have  been  delighted  to  expose  Edwards’ 
ignorance  about  ordinary  incidents  known  to  all 
the  art  world  except  the  man  who  had  written  a 
book  on  “ Anecdotes  of  Painting  ” ? Hoppner  did 
no  such  thing.  He  remained  silent.  The  plain 
conclusion  is,  that  he  did  have  possession  of  the 
“Blue  Boy”  in  1806,  and  probably  as  late  as  the  date 
of  Edwards’  book. 

Just  how  Hoppner  could  have  owned  the  picture 
in  1806  and  at  the  same  time  have  sold  it  to  the 
first  Earl  Grosvenor  in  1802  is  a question  that  we 
are  not  called  upon  to  solve  here. 

Young  concludes  his  historical  notice  of  the  Gros- 
venor House  “ Blue  Boy,”  in  these  concise  terms  : 

“ This  picture  was  purchased  at  Mr.  ButtalPs  sale  by  Mr. 
Nesbit ; it  became  afterwards  the  property  of  Mr.  Hoppner, 
who  disposed  of  it  to  Earl  Grosvenor.” 

Mr.  Nesbitt,  as  we  have  seen,  said,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Trimmer,  that  he  bought  his  “Blue 
Boy”  from  the  Prince  of  Wales.  John  Hoppner’s 
son,  R.  B.  Hoppner,  says,  “ I believe  it  [the  “ Blue 
Boy  ”]  was  in  my  father’s  custody  for  H.  R.  H.  the 
Prince  of  Wales.”  If  Hoppner  was  the  custodian 

and  not  the  owner  of  the  picture,  to  have  “ disposed 

35 


of  it  to  Earl  Grosvenor  ” would  have  been  a breach 
of  trust,  for  which  there  is  no  ground  for  belief  in 
any  act  of  Hoppner’s  life. 

Summing  up,  then,  these  several  contributions  to  the 
history  of  the  lineage  of  the  Grosvenor  House  “ Blue 
Boy,”  we  may  fairly  say : Fulcher  copies  Mrs.  Jameson ; 
Mrs.  Jameson  copies  John  Young;  Young  copies  a 
foot-note  from  Edwards,  though  otherwise  he  is  origi- 
nal. And  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  mainly  upon 
Young’s  catalogue,  that  the  claim  of  this  picture  rests 
of  being  the  “ Portrait  of  Master  Buttall”  and  the 
original  “ Blue  Boy  ” of  Thomas  Gainsborough. 


III. 

Befoee  concluding  this  sketch,  the  writer  has 
thought  it  proper  to  supplement  it  with  some  extracts 
from  articles  concerning  both  pictures  that  have  ap- 
peared from  time  to  time  in  the  London  journals  and 
other  publications. 

The  picture  now  exhibited  emerged  from  compara- 
tive obscurity  in  1867.  In  that  year  it  was  exhibited 
by  Mr.  J.  Sewell,  its  owner,  at  the  Conversazione  of 
the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers.  Its  seclusion  for 
thirty-six  years,  while  in  the  hands  of  William  Hall, 

36 


is  not  surprising,  when  we  consider  the  reputation  of 
that  eccentric  man.  Its  appearance,  on  the  occasion 
referred  to,  marks  the  beginning  of  a protracted  con- 
troversy as  to  the  relative  standing  of  this  picture  and 
the  “Blue  Boy”  of  the  Duke  of  Westminster.  The 
great  interest  which  the  present  picture  evoked  was 
further  stimulated  by  the  Exhibition  of  the  Grosvenor 
House  picture  at  the  Royal  Academy  in  1870.  The 
periodicals  of  the  day  took  up  the  subject.  Articles 
concerning  both  Blue  Boys  were  published  in  the 
Athenaeum , the  Graphic , the  Queen , the  Art  Journal , 
and  Notes  and  Queries . 

The  Athenaeum  of  August  28,  1869,  published  an 
editorial,  under  the  title,  “ Fine  Arts — Gainsborough’s 
Blue  Boy.”  It  said : 

“ There  are  it  seems  two  c Blue  Boys  5 in  the  field,  each 
claiming  to  be  a Gainsborough,  and  to  be  also  a first  class 
work  of  art ; yet  not  mere  copies  of  each  other,  more 
especially  in  the  artistic,  symmetrical  and  landscape  feature 
of  the  pictures ; the  less  known  being  the  better  finished  one 
in  all  these  accessories. 

“ One  of  them  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Marquis  of  West- 
minster, and  is  well  known  from  its  public  exhibitions,  and 
also  by  the  fine  engraving  of  it  published  by  Messrs.  Graves, 
Pall  Mall.  The  other,  after  a lengthened  obscurity  in  the 
hands  of  a Mr.  Hall,  an  eccentric  but  wealthy  admirer  of 
Gainsborough’s  works,  was  sold  after  his  death,  without 
direct  heirs,  about  ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  and  was  exhib- 
ited at  the  annual  Conversazione  of  the  Institution  of  Civil- 
Engineers,  in  1867,  by  its  present  possessor.  . . . 

37 


“ It  further  appears  that  a correct  history  of  6 The  Blue 
Boy  ’ is  still  a desideratum,  as  the  usual  history  associated 
with  the  Westminster  picture  is  neither  complete  nor  trust- 
worthy, and  that  considerable  obscurity  prevails  as  regards 
its  history,  from  the  time  of  leaving  Gainsborough’s  studio 
up  to  the  time  when  one  £ Blue  Boy  ’ found  its  way  into  the 
Grosvenor  Gallery,  and  another  into  the  possession  of  the 
late  Mr.  Hall.” 

The  [London]  Graphic  of  December  8,  1869,  pages 
58  and  59,  says: 

“ It  begins  to  seem  more  than  likely  that  the  Blue  Boy  in 
the  Grosvenor  Gallery  has  a twin  brother.  . . . This 

second  Dromio  has  just  been  hung  at  South  Kensington,  and 
there  awaits  the  verdict  of  the  connoisseurs. 

“ . . . When  the  best  judges  have  already  decided 

that  the  Blue  Boy  No.  2 is  more  gracefully  drawn  than  the 
Blue  Boy  No.  1,  that  the  colouring  of  the  former  is  clearer 
than  the  latter  and  the  character  of  the  face  more  pleasing, 
and  that  the  minutest  touches  of  the  subordinate  parts  are 
palpably  Gainsborough’s,  a case  is  quite  made  out  for  the 
new  claimant,  and  the  two  pictures  should  be  as  soon  as 
possible  hung  side  by  side  in  South  Kensington  in  broad 
daylight,  and  open  to  the  keenest  scrutiny. 

“ If  this  newly  discovered  picture  is  not  by  Gainsborough, 
by  whom  is  it?  Who  could  imitate  the  wonderful  bravura, 
who  could  have  made  the  red  blood  glow  through  those 
brown  cheeks  ? Who  could  vivify  those  keen  intelligent 
eyes  ? The  face  is  rather  smooth,  but  it  is  not  from  the  hand 
of  Du  Pont.  It  is  too  graceful  for  Wilson,  the  portrait 
painter.  It  is  beyond  what  Komney  or  Hoppner  could  have 
done ; as  for  Beechey,  he  only  imitated  Gainsborough’s  land- 
scapes. 

“ Is  the  second  Blue  Boy  to  remain  an  endless  crux  for 
modern  art-critics  ? ” 


38 


The  Queen , April  30,  1870,  on  page  268,  published 
an  editorial  article  under  the  title,  “ Description  of 
our  Coloured  Picture — The  Blue  Boy. — By  Thomas 
Gainsborough.”  After  repeating  the  substance  of  the 
popular  story  of  the  lineage  of  the  Grosvenor  House 
picture,  it  said : 

“ Until  this  last  year,  the  fact  that  there  were  two  4 Blue 
Boys ’ was  not  generally  known.  But,  as  nowadays  there  is 
always  something  astonishing  turning  up,  or  some  especial 
article  of  faith  ruthlessly  swept  away,  the  ‘ Blue  Boy 5 is 
not  exempt  from  what  appears  to  have  become  the  general 
rule.  The  question  as  to  which  is  the  original  and  which 
the  replica  has  been  argued  with  great  spirit  in  our  contem- 
porary, Notes  and  Queries.  For  many  years  the  Marquis  of 
Westminster’s  picture  was  the  unchallenged  claimant  of  the 
original  honours.  . . . But  at  the  conversazione  of  the 

Institution  of  Civil  Engineers  in  1867,  after  a lifetime’s  ob- 
scurity in  private  hands,  a second  Blue-clad  Boy  formed  one 
of  the  works  of  art  lent  for  exhibition.” 

In  1885  the  Grosvenor  House  “ Blue  Boy”  ap- 
peared at  the  Old  Masters’  Winter  Exhibition  held  at 
tbe  Grosvenor  Gallery.  The  Exhibition  was  mainly 
composed  of  the  works  of  Thomas  Gainsborough  and 
was  under  the  management  of  Sir  Coutts  Lindsay,  Bart., 
Director,  and  Mr.  J.  Comyns  Carr  and  Mr.  C.  E.  Halle, 
Assistant  Directors.  The  historical  and  illustrative 
notes  in  the  catalogue  were  prepared  by  Mr.  F.  G. 
Stephens,  the  Art  critic  of  the  Athenaeum.  On 
page  5 of  the  catalogue  of  the  Exhibition  there  is  the 
following  notice : 


39 


“ Sir  Coutts  Lindsay  and  the  Directors  of  the  Grosvenor 
Gallery  desire  to  express  their  thanks  to  the  owners  of  works 
by  Thomas  Gainsborough  for  the  readiness  with  which  many 
of  the  most  famous  and  valued  productions  of  the  master 
have  been  entrusted  to  them  for  the  present  exhibition. 

“ They  likewise  take  this  occasion  of  recording  their 
indebtedness  to  Mr.  Algernon  Graves  and  Mr.  McKay,  who 
have  assisted  them  in  tracing  many  of  the  Artist’s  works,  as 
well  as  to  Mr.  F.  G.  Stephens,  who  has  kindly  supplied  the 
historical  and  illustrative  notes  accompanying  the  cata- 
logue.” 

Mr.  Stephens  had  supplied  the  notes  accompany- 
ing the  catalogue  of  the  exhibition  of  the  works  of 
Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  the  year  before,  and  was 
thanked  for  them  at  that  time  by  the  Directors  in 
the  same  terms.  That  Mr.  Stephens  was  entrusted 
with  the  task  of  furnishing  the  notes  for  two  such 
important  exhibitions  as  these  sufficiently  attests  the 
esteem  in  which  his  attainments  and  judgment  were 
held  by  Sir  Coutts  Lindsay  and  the  Assistant  Direc- 
tors. 

Professor  Conway,  in  a prefatory  note  to  “ The  Ar- 
tistic Development  of  Reynolds  and  Gainsborough  ” 
(London,  1886),  says : 

“ The  published  Catalogues  of  those  Exhibitions  [at  the 
Grosvenor  Gallery  in  the  years  1884  and  1885]  cannot  fail  to 
maintain  a permanent  place  in  the  literature  of  English  Art.” 

At  page  35  of  the  Catalogue  is  entered  the  Gros- 
venor House  “ Blue  Boy.”  The  passages  quoted  be- 

40 


low  are  taken  from  Mr.  Stephens’  historical  notes; 
the  foot-notes  are  ours. 

44  62.  Master  Jonathan  Buttall,  4 The  Blue  Boy.’  Lent 
by  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  K.G. 

44  Master  Jonathan  Buttall  was  the  son  of  Mr.  Jonathan 
Buttall,  an  ironmonger  in  an  extensive  way  of  business, 
living  at  31,  Greek  Street  (at  the  corner  of  King  Street), 
Soho,  between  1728  (if  not  before)  and  1768,  when  he  died. 
According  to  the  4 Book  for  a Rainy  Day,’  p.  302,*  he  was 
4 an  immensely  rich  man.’  The  younger  Buttall  continued 
in  the  business  of  his  father!  until  1796,  when  his  effects 
were  sold  by  Sharpe  & Coxe,  the  well-known  auctioneers. 
. . . It  has  been  asserted  that  a 4 Blue  Boy  ’ (for  there 

can  hardly  be  a doubt  that  more  than  one  version  of  the 
work  exists)  was  sold  on  this  occasion.^  Much  controversy 
has  been  continued  over  a considerable  period,  when  the 
right  of  this  picture  to  be  the  original  version  was  discussed. 
It  has  been  averred  that  a 4 Blue  Boy  ’ was  at  the  Academy 
Exhibition  in  1770,  as  Ko.  85,  4 Portrait  of  a Young  Gentle- 
man,’ a whole-length  figure  which  attracted  much  attention. 

44  A story  has  been  credited  that  the  4 Blue  Boy  ’ was 
produced  by  Gainsborough  to  refute  a dictum  of  Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds,  delivered  in  his  Eighth  Discourse  to  the  students  of 
the  Royal  Academy,  December  10,  1778  : 4 It  ought,  in  my 
opinion,  to  be  indispensably  observed,  that  the  masses  of 

* “A  Book  for  a Rainy  Day:  or  Recollections  of  the  Events  of  the 
Years  1766-1838.  By  John  Thomas  Smith,  Late  Keeper  of  the  Prints 
and  Drawings  in  the  British  Museum.” 

t If  the  younger  Buttall  in  1768  “continued  in  the  business  of  his 
father,”  he  must  have  been  in  1779,  when  Gainsborough,  according  to 
Fulcher,  is  said  to  have  painted  the  “Blue  Boy,”  a man  of  affairs  and 
not  the  youth  we  see  in  the  picture. 

| Mr.  Stephens’ doubt  is  suggestive.  If  “a  ‘Blue  Boy’”  was  not 
sold  at  the  Buttall  sale,  by  what  known  link  is  the  Grosvenor  House 
version  of  the  “Blue  Boy”  connected  with  the  Buttalls  ? 

41 


light  in  a picture  be  always  of  a warm,  mellow  colour, 
yellow,  red,  or  a yellowish-white ; and  that  the  blue,  the  grey, 
or  the  green  colours  be  kept  almost  entirely  out  of  these 
masses,  and  be  used  only  to  support  and  set  off  these  warm 
colours ; and  for  this  purpose,  a small  proportion  of  cold 
colours  will  be  sufficient.  Let  the  conduct  be  reversed ; let 
the  light  be  cold  and  the  surrounding  colours  warm,  as  we 
often  see  in  the  works  of  the  Eoman  and  Florentine  painters, 
and  it  will  be  out  of  the  power  of  art,  even  in  the  hands 
of  Rubens  or  Titian,  to  make  a picture  splendid  and  harmo- 
nious.’ 

“It  is  obvious  that  the  Eighth  Discourse  may  have  been 
delivered  covertly  to  depreciate  the  picture  which  had 
been  exhibited  eight  years  before,  but  this  is  not  likely;* 
or  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  picture  was  produced  to 
demonstrate  the  futility  of  the  President’s  counsel.  Miss 
Mary  Moser,  R.A.,  writing  to  Fuseli,  then  in  Rome,  stated 
that  it  is  ‘ only  telling  you  what  you  know  already  of  the 
Exhibition  of  1770,  to  say  that  Gainsborough  is  beyond  him- 
self in  the  “ Portrait  of  a Gentleman  in  a Tandy ke  habit.”  ’ 
That  the  4 Blue  Boy  ’ was  thus  referred  to  is  more  than  prob- 
able, although  the  fact  is  incompatible  with  the  commonly 
held  opinion,  that  the  picture  was  intended  to  expose  the 
fallacy  of  the  discourse  delivered  long  after  1770.  Fulcher 
and  others,  on  the  contrary,  reported  that  it  was  probably 
not  till  early  in  1779  this  work  was  produced.  In  this  Haz- 
litt,  Lawrence,  Leslie,  and  Waagen  agree,  but  they  did  not 
apply  their  attention  to  other  circumstances  than  the  evident 
antagonism  of  the  artists  and  the  great  merit  of  the  painting. 
The  picture  is  believed  to  have  been  in  the  possession  of 
Hoppner,  R.A.,  as  a trust  on  behalf  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,! 

* “ Knowing  what  wre  do  of  Reynolds,  it  seems  to  me  almost  certain 
that  he  had  Gainsborough  in  his  mind  when  he  composed  the  above 
sentences.  . . — Walter  Armstrong,  “Thomas  Gainsborough,”  p.  47. 

f That  a “Blue  Boy  ” was  in  the  possession  of  Hoppner,  R.A.,  is  one 

42 


or  as  his  own  property.  See  a letter  [pp.  18, 19  supra]  from 
Hoppner’ s son,  Mr.  B.  B.  Hoppner,  stating  his  belief  that 
the  ‘Blue  Boy’  he  remembered  at  his  father’s  house,  18, 
Charles  Street,  St.  James’s  Square,  was  the  property  of  the 
Prince. 

“ The  whole  subject  of  the  relative  standing  of  this  picture 
and  more  than  one  version  of  it — to  say  nothing  of  what 
relates  to  numerous  copies — is  so  very  obscure  and  confused 
that  it  cannot  be  discussed  here.  The  version  most  favoured 
in  opposition  to  the  present  work  belonged,  it  is  said,  to  Mr. 
Nesbitt,*  of  Heston,  and  passed  to  the  hands  of  Mr.  W.  Hall, 
whose  affairs  getting  into  confusion,  his  effects  were,  in  1856, 
sold  to  Mr.  Dawson,  who  endeavoured,  unsuccessfully,  to  sell 
the  picture  to  the  late  Earl  Grosvenor.  At  Hall’s  sale  this 
version  wTas  described  as  ‘ A Portrait  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales.’  The  example  before  us  is  undoubtedly  authentic, 
and  was  exhibited  long  before  its  rival  was  recognized.! 

“ The  respective  claims  of  these  works  were  amply  dis- 
cussed in  ‘ The  Times,’  ‘ The  Queen,’  and  ‘ Notes  and 
Queries,’  Fourth  Series,  vols.  iii.,  iv.,  v.,  vi.,  vii.,  viii.,  ix., 
xi.,  and  xii.  The  picture  now  on  view  is  presumed  to  be 

of  the  best  established  facts  of  “Blue  Boy”  history  ; that  this  picture 
was  held  by  Hoppner  as  custodian  for  the  Prince  of  Wales  is  almost 
equally  certain.  But  which  “Blue  Boy”  was  it  that  Hoppner  had? 
John  Young,  in  his  “Catalogue  of  the  Pictures  at  Grosvenor  House” 
(1820),  dedicated  to  the  second  Earl  Grosvenor,  does  not  connect  the 
Grosvenor  House  version  of  the  “Blue  Boy”  with  the  Prince  of  Wales, 
and  yet  another  of  the  best  established  facts  in  “Blue  Boy  ” history  is, 
that  a “Blue  Boy  ” was  owned  for  a time  by  the  Prince  of  Wales  and 
subsequently  sold  to  Nesbitt.  The  reader  can  recall  the  evidence  trac- 
ing the  “Blue  Boy  ” to  Nesbitt  and  the  Prince  of  Wales  by  turning  to 
pages  13,  14  and  18  supra. 

* That  Nesbitt  got  his  “Blue  Boy  ” from  the  Prince  of  Wales  (subse- 
quently George  IV.),  see  the  Rev.  Mr.  Trimmer’s  contribution  to 
“ Thornbury’s  Life  of  Turner”  (p.  14  supra). 

f “ Its  rival,  ” during  the  thirty-six  years  it  was  in  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Hall,  was  not  publicly  exhibited. 


43 


that  mentioned  by  E.  Edwards  in  his  ‘ Anecdotes,’  1808, 
140 ; in  Fulcher’s  ‘ Life  of  Gainsborough,’  1856,  113  and 
202 ; Cunningham’s  c Lives  of  the  Painters,’  &c.,  1830,  i.,  353, 
and  Mrs.  Jameson’s  6 Companion  to  the  Private  Galleries,’ 
&c.,  iii.,  276.  The  last-named  writer  stated  that  after  But- 
tall’s  death  the  picture  was  bought  ‘ by  Mr.  Hesbit,  and 
was  afterwards  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Hoppner,  who  sold 
it  to  Earl  Grosvenor.’  Mrs.  Jameson  doubtless  learnt  this 
from  the  then  owner  of  the  picture.*  Cunningham  averred 
that  it  had  passed  through  many  changes  ere  it  became 
part  of  the  Grosvenor  Gallery  and  the  property  of  the  late 
Marquis  of  Westminster.! 

“ It  is  obvious  that  Gainsborough  might,  and  probably 
did,  find  occasion  to  illustrate  a principle  which  is  apparently 
opposed  to  the  dictum  of  Peynolds,  without  reference  to  the 
Eighth  Discourse  or  previous  utterance  of  the  P.E.  A.  . . . 

“ The  picture  before  us  is  known  to  have  been  exhibited 
at  the  British  Institution  with  a collection  of  Gainsborough’s 
works — the  first  formed  independently  of  the  artist  and  his 

*If  Mr.  Stephens  had  had  Young’s  catalogue  (previously  mentioned) 
before  him,  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  notes,  he  would  not  have  been 
obliged  to  conjecture  the  source  of  Mrs.  Jameson’s  information.  Mrs. 
Jameson  copied  John  Young — in  considerable  parts,  word  for  word. 

f More  precisely,  “ after  experiencing  a variety  of  fortune  ” it  found 
its  way  into  the  gallery  of  Lord  Grosvenor.  The  implication  in  Cun- 
ningham’s words  seems  to  be,  that  the  Grosvenor  version  of  the  “Blue 
Boy”  had  been  in  the  possession  not  only  of  various  owners,  but  of 
owners  in  various  conditions  of  life  ; ups  and  downs  are  implied  in  “ a 
variety  of  fortune.”  Cunningham’s  mention  of  the  “Blue  Boy”  is  of 
the  briefest.  He  does  not  attempt  to  sketch  its  history. 

Professor  William  Martin  Conway  (Roscoe  Professor  of  Art,  Univer- 
sity College,  Liverpool),  speaking  of  the  Grosvenor  “Blue  Boy,”  says  : 

“ It  is  a matter  for  great  regret  that,  since  the  time  when  the  picture 
was  last  exhibited,  it  should  have  seriously  deteriorated,  whether  owing 
to  injudicious  treatment  or  from  some  unavoidable  cause.” — “The 
Artistic  Development  of  Reynolds  and  Gainsborough  ” (London,  1886), 
p.  64. 


44 


wife — in  1814,  under  the  title  of  ‘ Portrait  of  a Youth,’  and 
again,  at  the  same  place,  in  1834,  as  ‘ 117,  A Young  Gentle- 
man in  a Landscape ; the  Picture  Known  as  the  Boy  in 
Blue.’  It  was  at  Manchester  in  1857 ; the  International 
Exhibition  in  1862;  and  at  the  Koyal  Academy  in  1870. 
The  last  occasion  evoked  the  discussion  above  alluded  to 
when  the  other  ‘ Blue  Boy  ’ became  prominent.  The  ques- 
tion may  be  summed  up  by  saying  that  probably  the  younger 
Buttall  had  a version  of  his  own  portrait,  while  the  Prince 
had  another.” 

It  will  be  observed  that,  in  the  Grosvenor  Gallery 
notice,  there  is  no  assumption  nor  claim  that  the  West- 
minster “ Blue  Boy  ” is  the  original  version.  On  the 
contrary,  there  is  a distinct  acknowledgment  that  the 
question,  which  version  is  the  original  picture,  is 
unsettled.  “ The  whole  subject,”  Mr.  Stephens  says, 
“is  so  very  obscure  and  confused  that  it  cannot  be 
discussed  here.” 

Apparently,  the  most  that  the  Grosvenor  Gallery 
notice  claims  for  the  Westminster  version  is,  that  it 
“is  undoubtedly  authentic,  and  was  exhibited  long 
before  its  rival  was  recognized.”  The  author  of  the 
historical  notice  of  the  Westminster  picture  in  the 
exhibition  of  1885,  could  not  be  expected  to  discrimi- 
nate against  it  in  favor  of  a rival. 


It  is  interesting,  in  conclusion,  to  compare  the  de- 
scription of  the  “ Blue  Boy  ” in  the  sale  catalogue  of 
1802  with  the  critical  opinion  of  Richard  J.  Lane, 

45 


R.A.E.,  a grand-nephew  of  Gainsborough,*  concern- 
ing the  “ Blue  Boy  ” now  for  the  first  time  exhibited 
in  America.  The  sale  catalogue  is  as  follows : 

“ ISTo.  63  Gainsborough. — A whole-length  Figure,  with 
a fine  Landscape  in  the  Back-Ground.  This  most  incom- 
parable performance  ranks  this  very  celebrated  Master 
among  the  First  Class  of  Painters,  Ancient  and  Modern. 
It  has  the  Grace  and  Elegance  of  Yandyck  in  the  Figure, 
with  a Countenance  as  forcibly  expressed,  and  as  rich  as 
Murillo,  with  the  Management  of  Titian.” — Catalogue. 

Of  this  “ Blue  Boy  ” Mr.  Lane  wrote : 

“ The  figure  is  more  elegant  than  the  Grosvenor  picture 
— the  colouring  clearer — the  character  of  the  face  far  more 
pleasing — the  minutest  touches  of  the  subordinate  parts  pal- 
pably Gainsboro’s.”  f 

Little  more  need  now  be  said.  Which  of  the  two 
paintings  was  first  in  point  of  time  may  never  per- 
haps be  settled  with  absolute  certainty.  Which  is  the 
superior  in  quality  competent  judges  may  determine. 
The  pictures  speak  for  themselves. 

* “ His  [Mr.  Lane’s]  peculiar  delicacy  and  tenderness  of  touch  were 
conspicuous  in  his  pencil  and  chalk  sketches,  of  which  he  executed  a 
large  number,  representing  most  of  the  best  known  people  of  the  day. 
. . . In  1864  ...  he  became  director  of  the  etching  class  in 

the  science  and  art  department  at  South  Kensington,  and  retained  the 
post  almost  till  his  death,  which  took  place  on  21  Nov.,  1872.” — “ Dic- 
tionary of  National  Biography.” 

“He  [Mr.  Lane]  has  copied  and  published  some  two  dozen  of  these 
fine  sketches  [of  Gainsborough’s],  and  he  ought  to  publish  more.” — 
Allan  Cunningham,  “British  Painters”  (London,  1879),  vol.  i.,  p.  278. 

Probably  there  has  been  no  critic  better  qualified  to  judge  of  the 
genuineness  of  a work  attributed  to  Gainsborough  than  Mr.  Lane. 

f Notes  and  Queries , 4th  Series,  vol.  vii.,  March  18,  1871,  p.  240. 

46 


& 


